1
2
3
4
5
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TOM CRUISE
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4590
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN
& MACHTINGER LLP
7
BERTRAM FIELDS (SBN 024199)
BFields@ggfirm.com
AARON J. MOSS (SBN 190625)
AMoss@GreenbergGlusker.com
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS
CLAMAN & MACHTINGER LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4590
Telephone: 310.553.3610
Fax: 310.553.0687
12
13
14
15
16
17
Case No.: _____________________
TOM CRUISE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BAUER PUBLISHING COMPANY
L.P., BAUER MAGAZINE L.P.,
BAUER MEDIA GROUP, INC.,
BAUER, INC., HEINRICH BAUER
NORTH AMERICA, INC. and DOES
1-10, inclusive
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
AND FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF
PRIVACY
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16233-00094/1860951.5
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
1
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
2
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4590
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN
& MACHTINGER LLP
3
Introduction
1.
Defendants are the publishers of sensational gossip magazines,
4
including Life & Style and In Touch. On at least two occasions over the past
5
several months, they have falsely trumpeted that plaintiff Tom Cruise has
6
“abandoned” his six year old daughter Suri. Through his representatives, plaintiff
7
has attempted to correct these fabrications by providing defendants with the true
8
facts before the lies went to press. But defendants have demonstrated that they
9
have no interest in the truth, and will stop at nothing to push the sales of their
10
tabloids, even if this means exploiting a defenseless six year old child on their
11
cover, and proclaiming to the world that she has been “ABANDONED BY HER
12
DAD.” Defendants’ cruel and reckless statements have no basis in fact, are not
13
protected by the First Amendment, and were calculated to sell tabloids in utter
14
contempt and disregard for the truth. Of course, this is not new. For years,
15
defendants have been making money hawking lies about plaintiff and others.
16
Plaintiff is not a litigious person and has not sued them before. But to falsely
17
accuse him of abandoning his child crosses the line. Enough is enough.
18
19
20
Jurisdiction and Venue
2.
This is a civil action between citizens of different states and the matter
21
in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. As
22
discussed below, because there is complete diversity of citizenship between
23
plaintiff and all defendants, the court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
24
1332(a).
25
3.
Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because plaintiff resides
26
here, primarily renders his services here, and this is where plaintiff has suffered the
27
primary harm from defendants’ publications.
28
16233-00094/1860951.5
1
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
1
2
3
4
Plaintiff is a motion picture actor who resides in Los Angeles,
California.
5.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
defendant Bauer Publishing Company, L.P. is a limited partnership organized under
6
the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business in New
7
Jersey, and is engaged in business in Los Angeles, California.
9
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4590
4.
5
8
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN
& MACHTINGER LLP
The Parties
6.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
defendant Bauer Magazine L.P. is a limited partnership organized under the laws of
10
the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in New Jersey, and is
11
engaged in business in Los Angeles, California.
12
7.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
13
defendant Bauer Media Group, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of
14
the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in New York, and is
15
engaged in business in Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff is further informed and
16
believes, and based thereon alleges, that Bauer Media Group, Inc. also maintains an
17
office in Los Angeles.
18
8.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
19
defendant Bauer, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of
20
Delaware, with its principal place of business in New Jersey, and is engaged in
21
business in Los Angeles, California.
22
9.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
23
defendant Heinrich Bauer North America, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under
24
the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in New York,
25
and is engaged in business in Los Angeles, California.
26
10.
Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the defendants
27
sued herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by
28
fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of the Court to amend this complaint to
16233-00094/1860951.5
2
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
1
allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and
2
believes, and based thereon alleges, that each fictitiously named defendant is
3
responsible in some way for the acts, occurrences and events alleged in this
4
complaint, and is liable to plaintiff therefore. Bauer Publishing Company, L.P.,
5
Bauer Magazine L.P., Bauer Media Group, L.P., Heinrich Bauer North America,
6
Inc. and Does 1 through 10 are sometimes referred to collectively herein as
7
“Defendants.”
8
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4590
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN
& MACHTINGER LLP
9
11.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all
times relevant herein, Defendants have operated as a joint venture dividing
10
revenues and profits between them and seeking by their joint efforts to maximize
11
gains and minimize losses. As such, each and every Defendant herein is equally
12
responsible in whole or in part for each and every act alleged herein.
13
12.
Defendants own, control, publish and/or contribute to the publication
14
of so-called supermarket tabloids, including Life & Style and In Touch, which are
15
distributed in print throughout the world. They claim to sell more magazines at
16
retail in the United States than any other magazine publishing company.
17
Defendants also publish reproductions of their tabloid covers on their Internet web
18
sites, usually unaccompanied by the inside stories, in order to promote the sale of
19
these tabloids. Defendants make money by publishing false and lurid stories about
20
celebrities that are hurtful or embarrassing. They are wholly unconcerned about the
21
truth of what they publish or the harm it causes. Indeed, the more hurt and
22
embarrassment they falsely and maliciously cause their victims, the more money
23
they make.
24
13.
Defendants place their magazines at supermarket checkout counters
25
and in other stores and outlets throughout the country. These publications are
26
placed so that millions of people each day must see their covers which feature
27
screaming headlines in huge, brightly colored letters that are typically of a false,
28
lurid and titillating nature, and that are often entirely unsupported by the stories
16233-00094/1860951.5
3
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
1
buried in the magazines’ interiors. Defendants’ plan is to use these eye-catching
2
headlines to cause people standing in checkout lines to buy their magazines.
3
However, only a small percentage of people who see the covers of Defendants’
4
magazines actually buy the magazines and fewer still actually read the interior
5
stories. Most see only the false and lurid headlines on the cover. They never see
6
the supposed “backup” assertions in the interior story, which often have little to do
7
with what is proclaimed on the cover and are typically false as well.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4590
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN
& MACHTINGER LLP
8
9
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10
Defamation
11
(Against All Defendants)
12
14.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference the allegations
13
contained in paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, as though they were fully set forth
14
herein.
15
15.
Plaintiff (sometimes referred to herein as “Tom”) has one child, Suri,
16
with actress Katie Holmes. He has two children by a prior marriage. Ms. Holmes
17
filed for divorce on or about June 29, 2012. Having reached a written settlement
18
agreement on or about July 9, 2012, plaintiff and Ms. Holmes were divorced on
19
August 20, 2012.
20
16.
On July 18, 2012, Defendants widely circulated the cover of their July
21
30, 2012 issue of Life & Style separate from the magazine itself, including on their
22
Internet web sites. That cover, published with no accompanying story, contained a
23
photograph of Suri in a box in the upper left hand corner, with the headline “SURI
24
IN TEARS, ABANDONED BY HER DAD.”
25
17.
The July 30, 2012 cover of Life & Style was also distributed in print.
26
The magazine contained an inside story on pages 34 and 35 entitled “Suri’s
27
Emotional Struggle.” A true and correct copy of the cover and story is attached
28
hereto as Exhibit “A.”
16233-00094/1860951.5
4
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
18.
The internal story, which would not be seen by the vast majority of
2
people who saw the cover but did not buy the magazine and read through it, and
3
which was not even available on-line, discusses the “difficult time” that Suri was
4
purportedly having “in the wake of her parents’ split.” It does not remotely purport
5
to provide any facts indicating or suggesting that Tom “abandoned” Suri, as
6
proclaimed on the cover. The reference to “Suri in tears” on the cover (which any
7
ordinary reader would believe were caused by Tom’s supposed “abandonment” of
8
his daughter) are described in the internal story as a result of Suri being upset over
9
not being able to take a puppy home from a pet store.
10
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4590
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN
& MACHTINGER LLP
1
19.
On July 18, 2012, upon receiving a copy of the July 30 edition of Life
11
& Style, plaintiff’s counsel immediately wrote to Defendants stating that the
12
assertions on the cover were completely false and defamatory. A true and correct
13
copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” Counsel pointed out that the
14
internal story did not provide any “facts” indicating the “abandonment” referred to
15
on the cover, and that no abandonment ever happened. Counsel noted that, during
16
the previous month, when plaintiff was shooting a film, he spoke with Suri
17
regularly. Counsel also pointed out that plaintiff and Suri were together that very
18
day, and were also together the day before Defendants’ defamatory Life & Style
19
cover was published, completely refuting any assertion that Suri had been
20
“abandoned” by her father. Plaintiff demanded a retraction of Defendants’ false
21
assertions, but Defendants refused.
22
20.
Any ordinary reader would understand that child abandonment is a
23
despicable act that is both morally and legally reprehensible. Any such reader,
24
upon seeing the assertion that Suri has been “ABANDONED BY HER DAD,”
25
would understand this statement’s plain meaning: that plaintiff has cut off all ties
26
with his daughter, has completely and permanently abdicated his parental
27
responsibilities, and no longer wants Suri to be part of his life.
28
16233-00094/1860951.5
5
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
1
never abandon her. Whenever his work has taken him on location away from Suri,
3
he speaks with her every day, and often more frequently — as plaintiff’s
4
representatives have repeatedly informed Defendants.
22.
Defendants’ false assertions accuse plaintiff of child abandonment,
6
which is a crime, and of being a heartless, horrible, despicable person who can’t be
7
trusted to fulfill even his most basic responsibilities. Defendants’ statements
8
constitute libel per se.
9
10
11
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4590
The true facts are that plaintiff loves his daughter dearly and would
2
5
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN
& MACHTINGER LLP
21.
23.
Defendants published their defamatory statements with knowledge of
their falsity and/or in reckless disregard of the truth.
24.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ false and defamatory
12
assertions, plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount as yet unknown, but which
13
plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that ground, alleges will exceed the sum
14
of $50 million.
15
25.
Defendants have deliberately committed acts in aggravation of this
16
horrible conduct alleged herein. Both prior to and after July 18, 2012, when
17
Defendants first published their defamatory “abandonment” cover, it was widely
18
reported in the media that plaintiff spent a substantial amount of time in New York
19
with his daughter in between work projects. Defendants were therefore on even
20
further notice that plaintiff had not “abandoned” Suri. However, Defendants
21
repeated their defamatory assertion. On September 19, 2012, Defendants widely
22
circulated the cover of their October 1, 2012 issue of In Touch (a “sister”
23
publication of Life & Style), separate from the magazine itself, including on the
24
Internet. That cover, published with no accompanying story, contained a huge
25
photograph of Suri looking sad that took up most of the cover, accompanied by a
26
large bold headline proclaiming that Suri has been “ABANDONED BY DADDY.”
27
28
26.
This second false accusation of abandonment was made even more
shameful and reprehensible by Defendants’ acknowledgement, buried deep inside
16233-00094/1860951.5
6
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
1
the story itself, that while Tom has been in London working on a motion picture, he
2
and Suri are “very close” and “speak every day.” Of course, the millions of people
3
who saw the magazine cover and did not buy the magazine or read the interior story
4
never even saw those comments, which contradict the outrageously false claims on
5
the cover. A true and correct copy of the cover and story is attached hereto as
6
Exhibit “C.”
27.
Plaintiff’s representatives again demanded a retraction (a true and
8
correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”), but Defendants again
9
refused.
10
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4590
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN
& MACHTINGER LLP
7
28.
Defendants’ conduct is part of a pattern and practice that defrauds the
11
public and severely damages the victims of their so-called “reporting” by making
12
embarrassing and cruelly false assertions with no basis in fact. Defendants further
13
defraud the public by internal stories which are also false, but which frequently
14
have little or nothing to do with the outrageous lies trumpeted on the magazine’s
15
cover. By following this fraudulent and malicious pattern and practice, Defendants
16
have caused harm to many individuals, and have bilked the public of the money
17
paid for their knowingly false reporting. Defendants are part of a worldwide media
18
empire comprising over 300 magazines in 15 countries in addition to a wide range
19
of television and radio properties. Based on the foregoing, Defendants should be
20
assessed with sufficient punitive damages to serve as a deterrent to further such
21
conduct and as punishment for their fraudulent and malicious misconduct.
22
23
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
24
Invasion of Privacy (False Light)
25
(Against All Defendants)
26
29.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference the allegations
27
contained in paragraphs 1 through 28, inclusive, as though they were fully set forth
28
herein.
16233-00094/1860951.5
7
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
1
30.
2
described above, including the assertion that plaintiff “abandoned” his daughter,
3
Defendants have portrayed plaintiff in a false light.
4
5
31.
7
32.
33.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, plaintiff has
suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
10
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4590
Defendants knew the statements alleged herein would create a false
impression about plaintiff and/or acted in reckless disregard of the truth.
8
9
The false light created by Defendants’ allegations would be highly
offensive to a reasonable person.
6
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN
& MACHTINGER LLP
By publishing or causing to be published the false allegations
34.
Defendants did not engage in their conduct out of any sincere or
11
proper motive, but did so knowingly, willfully and oppressively, with full
12
knowledge of the adverse effects that their actions would have on plaintiff, and with
13
willful and deliberate disregard for these consequences. Accordingly, plaintiff is
14
entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
15
determined at trial.
16
17
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as follows:
18
1.
19
For damages of $50 million or such other and greater sum as shall be
found;
20
2.
21
Defendants;
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter and punish
16233-00094/1860951.5
8
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
EXHIBIT A
11
EXHIBIT A
12
EXHIBIT A
13
EXHIBIT B
14
EXHIBIT C
15
EXHIBIT C
16
EXHIBIT C
17
EXHIBIT C
18
EXHIBIT C
19
Aaron J. Moss
D: 310.785.6814
F: 310.201.2314
AMoss@GreenbergGlusker.com
File Number: 16233-00003
September 19, 2012
Via E-Mail
Gregory Welch, General Counsel
In Touch / Life & Style
Bauer Publishing Group
270 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
gwelch@bauer-usa.com
Dan Wakeford, Editor-in-Chief
In Touch / Life & Style
Bauer Publishing Group
270 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
dwakeford@bauerpublishing.com
Jared Shapiro
Editorial Director
In Touch / Life & Style
Bauer Publishing Group
270 Sylvan Ave.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
jshapiro@bauerpublishing.com
Rachel Biermann
Entertainment Director
In Touch / Life & Style
Bauer Publishing Group
270 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
rbiermann@bauerpublishing.com
Re:
Tom Cruise — In Touch
Dear Mr. Welch, Mr. Wakeford, Mr. Shapiro and Ms. Biermann:
For the second time in two months, you have published the knowingly false statement
that Tom Cruise has “abandoned” his daughter Suri, this time in a giant headline on the cover of
the October 1, 2012 issue of In Touch. Your conduct is vile and reprehensible, and we intend to
hold you fully accountable in court.
There is nothing in your internal story that even remotely supports the claims on your
cover that Suri has been “ABANDONED BY DADDY,” has been left “heartbroken” as “Tom
suddenly shuts her out,” or that Mr. Cruise has “chosen Scientology over Suri for good.” Any
ordinary reader seeing these headlines in a grocery store checkout aisle would interpret them as
an assertion that Mr. Cruise has completely and permanently abdicated his parental
responsibilities to his daughter. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Bert Fields
informed you in his July 18 letter, Mr. Cruise loves Suri dearly. Whenever his motion picture
schedule has prevented him from seeing Suri in person, he speaks with her regularly. Contrary
to your cover headline that Mr. Cruise has “suddenly shut[]her out,” nothing at all has changed
since July. Mr. Cruise continues to talk with Suri several times a day. Indeed, you acknowledge
Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067
T: 310.553.3610 | F: 310.553.0687
16233-00003/1860553.1
EXHIBIT D
20
Gregory Welch
Dan Wakeford
Jared Shapiro
Rachel Biermann
September 19, 2012
Page 2
in the article itself that Mr. Cruise speaks with Suri “every day” and that the two are “very
close,” but these comments are buried deep inside a section of the magazine that few people who
view the cover in line at the supermarket will ever see.
The captions on the inside of your magazine are just as defamatory, especially the
headline trumpeting “TOM’S BROKEN PROMISES TO SURI.” In court, we will establish that
(unbeknownst to your readers) this headline was a remnant of the original focus of your story, in
which you planned to assert that Mr. Cruise would miss Suri’s first day of school “despite his
promise to Suri that he would be there.” However, by September 15, Ms. Biermann and Mr.
Shapiro were advised by representatives of both Mr. Cruise and Ms. Holmes that this was
completely false – that Mr. Cruise never promised Suri that he could accompany her to school
and that, to the contrary, Ms. Holmes and Suri both knew in advance that Mr. Cruise would be in
London that day working.
Therefore, as you indisputably knew prior to publication, there were no “broken
promises,” and yet your caption remained. However, there is nothing inside the magazine that
provides any facts whatsoever to support this caption’s defamatory assertion that Mr. Cruise is a
liar. The truth is that Tom is a man of his word, and would never make a promise he knew he
could not keep. Indeed, the internal text of the magazine confirms (if any reader ever got to it),
that “Katie and Suri were informed in advance that Tom would not be coming [to her first day of
school] due to prior work commitments.”
Nothing printed in your magazine’s inside text cures the false statements made by your
defamatory headlines, and only serves to prove that you published those headlines knowing that
they were false. While you apparently believe that your headlines are “liability free zones,” that
argument was rejected long ago. If you have not reviewed Kaelin v. Globe Communications
Corp., 162 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1998), you should do so.
If anything, the inside story amplifies the defamatory portrayal of Mr. Cruise as having
heartless indifference to Suri, someone who would rather be out “drinking beer with a group of
pals” than seeing his daughter. But the truth, as you know, is that Mr. Cruise is a devoted father,
who simply happens to be working in London on a film. By your reasoning, any actor who is
shooting on location in a foreign country could be charged with child abandonment, as could all
of the mothers and fathers serving overseas in the military.
And while your vicious attacks on Mr. Cruise’s character are bad enough, the fact that
you didn’t consider the effects these lies could have on his daughter are utterly reprehensible. In
the fog of your insatiable greed and desire to sell tabloids at all costs, have you completely
forgotten that the person whose giant photo you’ve plastered on your cover is only six years old?
If she feels “heartbroken” now, how do you expect she would feel having learned that her father
16233-00003/1860553.1
EXHIBIT D
21
Gregory Welch
Dan Wakeford
Jared Shapiro
Rachel Biermann
September 19, 2012
Page 3
supposedly considers her a “suppressive” person from whom he must “totally disconnect?”
Have you no sense of decency?
Simply stated, your story is blatantly and provably false, defamatory and malicious, and
itself constitutes child abuse. By placing false and misleading headlines on your cover in order
to induce people to buy the trash inside, you have caused serious and irreparable damage to our
client. Without limiting any of Mr. Cruise’s rights or remedies for the enormous damages you
have caused him, we demand that you immediately retract each and every one of your false
assertions about Mr. Cruise with the same prominence and emphasis as you gave your original
false and defamatory assertions.
Now that you have been put on notice of our claims, you are also under a legal duty to
preserve all evidence, including both physical and electronically-stored documents, files,
materials and information. Severe sanctions would be imposed if you fail to preserve this
evidence, and/or affirmatively destroy or delete any evidence that may be relevant to this case.
Please inform all employees and independent contractors who had any involvement in this story
of these requirements.
Sincerely,
Aaron J. Moss
AJM/jgg
16233-00003/1860553.1
EXHIBIT D
22